The appellant was the mother of a child, who was claiming asylum. The father sought the return of the child to India, claiming he had been abducted by the mother. She said that whilst her claim for asylum was extant, the court must not allow her or the child to be removed.
Held: India was not a signatory to the convention, and therefore the matter had to be dealt with under the court’s wardship jurisdiction. The mother and children had now been granted exceptional leave to stay in the UK. The words ‘remove’ or ‘required to leave’ in the 1999 Act, were to be read as technical immigration law terms, with no wider implications. The proper forum for the father’s claim was India, and the child must be returned.
Judges:
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Laws and Lord Justice Rix
Citations:
Times 03-Jun-2002, Gazette 04-Jul-2002
Statutes:
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 15
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal) FD 24-Apr-2002
The mother had applied here for asylum. Her application had been refused but was subject to appeal. The father in India sought the return of the children on the basis that they had been removed from a Convention country which was their habitual . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – In re S (Children) (Child abduction: Asylum appeal) FD 24-Apr-2002
The mother had applied here for asylum. Her application had been refused but was subject to appeal. The father in India sought the return of the children on the basis that they had been removed from a Convention country which was their habitual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration, Children
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172179
